But see, you come back a few posts later and say that virtual keyboards never work for you, so by definition you are excluded from my comment, which explicitly says that if you can be comfortable with virtual keyboards in other contexts, then they are fine for SSH.
That depends. Say you have an encrypted protocol relaying through my site. If there is a key exchange at the beginning, I can intercept the key exchange and handle the keys for both ends, decrypting transmits from A, and reencrypting them to go to B, and vice versa. Only if you had a shared secret that had NEVER gone through any other channels that could be intercepted, and which you could then use to set up your encrypted channel, could you reasonably trust a system that routes through someone else's hardware. But that takes an outside-of-the-network connection to set up, and thus is useless in any kind of any-to-any communications network.
Actually, I SSH into servers from my iPhone frequently. If the virtual keyboard works for you in other contexts, it works just fine for SSH. (iSSH, the program I use, has a couple of handy controls floating on the screen that give access to things like an ESC key and arrow keys that the virtual keyboard itself lacks. I tried out a different terminal program for a while that used gestures to do the same thing, but it just wasn't as easy to use of a solution.) So bottom line is, virtual keyboards don't have any intrinsic issues with SSH use for common system administration tasks.
It says that they can take property for public use. So taking it to give it to another private party, who in turn promised to develop it in a way that would bring in more tax revenue to the city, is not public use. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed. The icing on the cake, though, is that the proposed marina development fell through and New London would have made more in tax revenue if they'd not taken the property in the first place.
Are you sure you're not just concern trolling? I mean, Apple's maps are not perfect, but neither were Google's. I find the new maps faster than and about as accurate as Google's, though they do have fewer place locations. (I suspect that last will change rapidly now that people are using the product.) But I can at least see the argument that maps need improvement on iOS. I can even see an argument that Apple doesn't focus enough on products like iWork once they're out, such that they fall behind over time, which is an argument you didn't make. But the rest of your worries are, to be frank, more like FUD than any real concerns a real Apple user would have.
It's Kelo, not Keho, but otherwise a spot-on comment. I would like to think that this would be an obvious, slam-dunk decsion, but after Kelo and Reich, I don't know that there are such things any more. Which, by the way, just points out the infinite danger of the "living Constitution" philosophy: it inevitably leads to the rule of man (that is, arbitrary and capricious rule, rather than the rule of law, which is predictable and not tied to personalities), by the mechanism of making the law meaningless without constant, case-by-case interpretation.
Yes, the Republicans were in charge and yes, Bush signed the bill. But go dig up the newspaper headlines or TV news reports from that time. The DHS was proposed (don't remember by whom) right after 9/11, while the planes were still grounded. Bush and a lot of senior Republicans in Congress did not want to create it, and as a result were pounded for about three weeks with all kinds of assertions of "not doing anything" and "not taking security seriously". They finally caved, but their initial position was the correct one. DHS should be eliminated, its functions turned back to the departments best suited to them. TSA should simply be eliminated, and the airports and airlines given the responsibility for airline security, with no government backstop to losses for negligence if an event occurs. One regulation I would like to see, that would go further than anything yet done, is to require all new aircraft above a certain size to have a flight deck area accessible only via a separate door to the outside. That is, the only way into the flight deck would be on the ground, via a different entry.
Having been a government contractor, I agree, with a small caveat. If corporations are truly given a contract with measurable and concrete goals, and the government oversight is just ensuring that those goals are met, it can work. Too often, it's government managers and contract workers, and the government managers look at the contract workers as a way to dump off responsibility. This in turn leads to low retention due to low morale, and thus to higher costs to attract and retain people. (Made much worse because of the large amount of things that are classified, and the costs associated with clearing employees.) The net effect is poor management made worse, expensive labor made more so, and work done badly. I used to think the bureaucratic side of the Federal government was horrid, until I worked there, after which I think it would have to get much better to rise to the level of horrid.
Can we finally admit that the Republicans were right after 9/11, that DHS is not needed and in fact a bad thing, and dismantle it?
Do you think 3D printers can rejuvenate the electronics hobbyist market, or that the increasing sophistication and miniaturization of electronics makes that a forlorn goal?
Moreover there is absolutely no right to a secret ballot. Secret ballots (aka Australian ballots) were introduced something like a hundred years into our independence. Secret ballots are a good thing for a lot of reasons, but the state has a balancing of interests to perform, rather than an absolute right to protect.
Well, part of my time growing up was lived in an impoverished semi-dictatorship, so it's not like I disagree, per se. However, "bad" in an absolute sense hasn't been a problem for the US since about 1864 in the North and 1870 or so in the South. But 1979 was and now is certainly bad in the sense of "in comparison to where we have been and could be," so I don't think I'm overreacting at all.
I'm certainly not claiming politics has no role in business, nor even the more limited claim that it has no role in uptake of collaboration systems, merely that politics is probably not the primary impediment, as you seem to have been saying originally.
Embassy attacks. Crap economy. Foreign policy humiliation. Three Mile Island. Am I the only one who didn't like 1979 the first time, and don't want a replay?
I think your central observation, that people don't work the way they play, is very insightful, but the rest is problematic. It seems to me that the reason that the feed/open sharing idea is so frequently a failure in business is not because of politics, at least not in most of the places I've worked (some of which are very political). Rather, it's because people's jobs are specialized. People need certain information to do their jobs, and everything else is just wasting time.
Consider where I work now, which is largely a FOSS company (at least the division I'm in) and which has a very collaborative environment. I work with an infrastructure team, a database team, and a couple of project teams. None of them really cares deeply about what I do except as it relates to their own work. Thus, a feed of what I'm doing all the time would be a set of information where the messages are always useful to someone, but any given someone would only get use out of a fraction of the messages. If the infrastructure team has to filter out a hundred messages to get to the one they care about, that's a huge waste of time for them. It's like a SCRUM with too large a team, and for the same reason.
Businesses need a way of quickly, transparently and broadly sharing information that also allows you to not see information you don't need/want. The conflict between these requirements, plus human nature (tagging could solve it, if people would/could consistently and informatively tag), is sufficient to make this kind of model unlikely in a business.
There may be a few apps that end up requiring the extra screen space to be useful, but I doubt there will be many. (And most of those will be where the developers were being too clever by half with their interface.) For example, I'm teaching my son to program, and he's building an iPhone app. For him, there will need to be an if/else in applicationDidFinishLaunching that determines the screen height, which would then be used to set the height of list views and scroll views and such. Other than that, no changes needed, and it works perfectly fine on all of the standard iPhone screen sizes. He'd have to do this anyway (and with width) when he gets around to putting in iPad support, so it's actually no extra work to get it looking right on all three display sizes (or four, when the mini comes out).
Actually, developers can write that way if they want. They just do the interface in code instead of using IB. But in practical terms, Apple generally makes choices with iOS such that apps keep looking the way they are, or at least reasonably the same, until/unless they are updated. This gives the developers time flexibility, while also allowing them to fine-tune the look and feel of their interfaces quite nicely. I prefer this to the horrid scaling of, say, Android phone apps installed on a tablet. (Note: not all of them, but some scale terribly.) In any event, there's nothing in the OS/APIs that prevents writing this way; it's just not the default.
For geeks, the sandbox is a major detractor. For normal people, it's a non-issue, and in fact is a fairly transparent way to give some kind of assurance of app stability/quality/security. (Admittedly, minimal assurance, but better by far than what you get on an open platform.)
Slashdot Mirror
Useless for any-to-any communication, I said. Because any-to-any implies that there is no other channel.
But see, you come back a few posts later and say that virtual keyboards never work for you, so by definition you are excluded from my comment, which explicitly says that if you can be comfortable with virtual keyboards in other contexts, then they are fine for SSH.
That depends. Say you have an encrypted protocol relaying through my site. If there is a key exchange at the beginning, I can intercept the key exchange and handle the keys for both ends, decrypting transmits from A, and reencrypting them to go to B, and vice versa. Only if you had a shared secret that had NEVER gone through any other channels that could be intercepted, and which you could then use to set up your encrypted channel, could you reasonably trust a system that routes through someone else's hardware. But that takes an outside-of-the-network connection to set up, and thus is useless in any kind of any-to-any communications network.
Actually, I SSH into servers from my iPhone frequently. If the virtual keyboard works for you in other contexts, it works just fine for SSH. (iSSH, the program I use, has a couple of handy controls floating on the screen that give access to things like an ESC key and arrow keys that the virtual keyboard itself lacks. I tried out a different terminal program for a while that used gestures to do the same thing, but it just wasn't as easy to use of a solution.) So bottom line is, virtual keyboards don't have any intrinsic issues with SSH use for common system administration tasks.
SpaceX's explicit goal is to get to Mars, and to do that, they're making it a paying proposition at almost every step of the way.
It says that they can take property for public use. So taking it to give it to another private party, who in turn promised to develop it in a way that would bring in more tax revenue to the city, is not public use. Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed. The icing on the cake, though, is that the proposed marina development fell through and New London would have made more in tax revenue if they'd not taken the property in the first place.
Gah! Too much World in Flames lately for me, it would seem.
Agreed on Scalia, which is why I mentioned Reich. Thomas seems to be the only one who means it.
Are you sure you're not just concern trolling? I mean, Apple's maps are not perfect, but neither were Google's. I find the new maps faster than and about as accurate as Google's, though they do have fewer place locations. (I suspect that last will change rapidly now that people are using the product.) But I can at least see the argument that maps need improvement on iOS. I can even see an argument that Apple doesn't focus enough on products like iWork once they're out, such that they fall behind over time, which is an argument you didn't make. But the rest of your worries are, to be frank, more like FUD than any real concerns a real Apple user would have.
It's Kelo, not Keho, but otherwise a spot-on comment. I would like to think that this would be an obvious, slam-dunk decsion, but after Kelo and Reich, I don't know that there are such things any more. Which, by the way, just points out the infinite danger of the "living Constitution" philosophy: it inevitably leads to the rule of man (that is, arbitrary and capricious rule, rather than the rule of law, which is predictable and not tied to personalities), by the mechanism of making the law meaningless without constant, case-by-case interpretation.
Yes, the Republicans were in charge and yes, Bush signed the bill. But go dig up the newspaper headlines or TV news reports from that time. The DHS was proposed (don't remember by whom) right after 9/11, while the planes were still grounded. Bush and a lot of senior Republicans in Congress did not want to create it, and as a result were pounded for about three weeks with all kinds of assertions of "not doing anything" and "not taking security seriously". They finally caved, but their initial position was the correct one. DHS should be eliminated, its functions turned back to the departments best suited to them. TSA should simply be eliminated, and the airports and airlines given the responsibility for airline security, with no government backstop to losses for negligence if an event occurs. One regulation I would like to see, that would go further than anything yet done, is to require all new aircraft above a certain size to have a flight deck area accessible only via a separate door to the outside. That is, the only way into the flight deck would be on the ground, via a different entry.
Can we finally admit that the Republicans were right after 9/11, that DHS is not needed and in fact a bad thing, and dismantle it?
Do you think 3D printers can rejuvenate the electronics hobbyist market, or that the increasing sophistication and miniaturization of electronics makes that a forlorn goal?
About how walled gardens are bad?
That's just wrong. When Gruber thinks Apple's messed up, he says so. He's definitely an Apple fan, but hardly an unthinking drone.
Water is wet.
Moreover there is absolutely no right to a secret ballot. Secret ballots (aka Australian ballots) were introduced something like a hundred years into our independence. Secret ballots are a good thing for a lot of reasons, but the state has a balancing of interests to perform, rather than an absolute right to protect.
Well, part of my time growing up was lived in an impoverished semi-dictatorship, so it's not like I disagree, per se. However, "bad" in an absolute sense hasn't been a problem for the US since about 1864 in the North and 1870 or so in the South. But 1979 was and now is certainly bad in the sense of "in comparison to where we have been and could be," so I don't think I'm overreacting at all.
I'm certainly not claiming politics has no role in business, nor even the more limited claim that it has no role in uptake of collaboration systems, merely that politics is probably not the primary impediment, as you seem to have been saying originally.
Embassy attacks. Crap economy. Foreign policy humiliation. Three Mile Island. Am I the only one who didn't like 1979 the first time, and don't want a replay?
Consider where I work now, which is largely a FOSS company (at least the division I'm in) and which has a very collaborative environment. I work with an infrastructure team, a database team, and a couple of project teams. None of them really cares deeply about what I do except as it relates to their own work. Thus, a feed of what I'm doing all the time would be a set of information where the messages are always useful to someone, but any given someone would only get use out of a fraction of the messages. If the infrastructure team has to filter out a hundred messages to get to the one they care about, that's a huge waste of time for them. It's like a SCRUM with too large a team, and for the same reason.
Businesses need a way of quickly, transparently and broadly sharing information that also allows you to not see information you don't need/want. The conflict between these requirements, plus human nature (tagging could solve it, if people would/could consistently and informatively tag), is sufficient to make this kind of model unlikely in a business.
But what happened to Ron Paul?
There may be a few apps that end up requiring the extra screen space to be useful, but I doubt there will be many. (And most of those will be where the developers were being too clever by half with their interface.) For example, I'm teaching my son to program, and he's building an iPhone app. For him, there will need to be an if/else in applicationDidFinishLaunching that determines the screen height, which would then be used to set the height of list views and scroll views and such. Other than that, no changes needed, and it works perfectly fine on all of the standard iPhone screen sizes. He'd have to do this anyway (and with width) when he gets around to putting in iPad support, so it's actually no extra work to get it looking right on all three display sizes (or four, when the mini comes out).
Actually, developers can write that way if they want. They just do the interface in code instead of using IB. But in practical terms, Apple generally makes choices with iOS such that apps keep looking the way they are, or at least reasonably the same, until/unless they are updated. This gives the developers time flexibility, while also allowing them to fine-tune the look and feel of their interfaces quite nicely. I prefer this to the horrid scaling of, say, Android phone apps installed on a tablet. (Note: not all of them, but some scale terribly.) In any event, there's nothing in the OS/APIs that prevents writing this way; it's just not the default.
For geeks, the sandbox is a major detractor. For normal people, it's a non-issue, and in fact is a fairly transparent way to give some kind of assurance of app stability/quality/security. (Admittedly, minimal assurance, but better by far than what you get on an open platform.)